Historic Harlem Court House

The Harlem Community Justice Center's Reentry Services are located in East Harlem

2013 Reentry Graduation starts with a song

The choir started off the celebration this year at the Reentry Court Graduation

Family Reentry Summer Celebration

During the summer, we host a block party and celebration for Reentry clients and their families

Reentry Graduation

Young man thanks his Parole Officer for keeping him on track

Harlem Reentry Graduation

Families join to celebrate the accomplishments of graduates

Showing posts with label Prisoner Reentry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prisoner Reentry. Show all posts

Mar 1, 2012

Innovations in Government Award Competition Applications Due March 15th

The Harvard Innovations in American Government Awards Program is accepting applications for the 2012 award cycle. The program provides an opportunity to showcase local government innovation. Given the amazing work being done around prisoner reentry across the country, we encourage government led/involved reentry collaborations to consider applying. The top prize is $100,000, but more importantly winners and runners up receive positive attention for their effort that can help to sustain them and promote their replication. If you are a non-profit working closely with a government entity on an innovative program with some results approach them about applying.

Nov 28, 2011

NJ Expands Reentry Efforts

Today, as reported in North Jersey.com, NJ's Governor, Chris Christie, is expected to announce a major expansion of the state's reentry efforts. "The initiative adopts many of the recommendations made to the Christie administration by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative New York City-based think tank with a progressive reputation on prison issues, which was commissioned to analyze the state’s current prisoner re-entry system.
The institute found the state’s existing re-entry efforts amounted to 'a confusing system with no centralized definitions and mission, a lack of accountability for outcomes . . . and a lack of coordination, with potential duplication of services and no continuity between services provided in prison, during parole and in the community.'”

The Governor’s first major criminal justice initiative calls for:


"Expanding the state’s Drug Court program, which allows those convicted of certain non-violent drug offenses to bypass incarceration by agreeing to a strict regimen of court appearances and drug or alcohol treatment and other recovery services to break the addiction.

The creation of the Task Force for Recidivism Reduction, which will be co-chaired by attorney Lisa Puglisi, with the state Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board, and James Plousis, chairman of the State Parole Board. The task force will coordinate the many treatment and reentry programs across the state government to bolster reentry efforts, as well as make recommendations to the governor on how to improve those programs.

The task force will also assess the effectiveness of all reentry programs currently offered using a real-time recidivism database, which will allow officials to track individuals and the success of the programs they participate in. Using the data, the task force will identify programs that fail and suggest how resources could be better spent to improve recidivism rates."

Feb 2, 2011

Governor's Budget Maintains Some Support for Prisoner Reentry

Governor Cuomo has proposed steep cuts in New York State spending as part of his first budget released yesterday. Citing declines in the state’s inmate and parole populations, his budget projects that 1500 fewer parolees will be under supervision in the coming year fiscal year that begins April 1, 2011. As a result, the budget projects a savings of 3.7 million from a reduction in Parole staffing as well as 1.8 million in Parole “staffing controls” that are anticipated to reduce overtime. The Governor is also proposing that the State’s Division of Parole merge with the Department of Corrections.


The Budget also chops 273 million from the NYS Department of Correctional Services resulting from the closure of one minimum security prison and half of another in January 2011 (the current fiscal year). The Budget recommends closing an additional 2 prisons in the next fiscal year. The state’s prisons population, which peaked at 71,600 in 1999, is expected to drop another 2100 in the current and next fiscal year to a total of 57,600 inmates – a 21% decrease.

It is not all bad news for advocates of smart criminal justice policies. The Budget also includes continued support for the state’s prisoner reentry initiative. The NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will continue to coordinate the state’s reentry effort. The Budget includes 3.3 million dollars for local Country Reentry Task Force programs (this funding supports the work of the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force). The Budget also includes the following statement of support for Parole’s reentry efforts.

“As part of the effort to reduce recidivism through a focus on community re-entry, the Division of Parole will continue its cooperative efforts with the Department of Correctional Services to expand re-entry programs. The goal is to create a more seamless system for assessing the needs of offenders, ensuring access to services, maintaining accurate records of offender information, and addressing other factors essential to successful community re-entry.”

New York State has reduced both crime and incarceration over the past ten years through the adoption of progressive smart on crime polices. The proposed budget signals support for smart justice policies like reentry.

To read the criminal justice portion of the Governor’s Budget click here.

Dec 15, 2010

Former DCJS Commissioner Denise O'Donnell to head the Bureau of Justice Assistance

President Obama has nominated former New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Commissioner Denise E. O’Donnell to lead the U.S Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance. During Ms. O'Donnell's tenure at DCJS she oversaw the development of the state's reentry plan, including the development of County Reentry Task Force programs.   Below is the text from the White House press release.


****
Denise E. O’Donnell recently served as New York State Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, where she oversaw 11 homeland security and criminal justice agencies with a combined annual budget of $4.7 billion. From 2007 to 2010, Ms. O’Donnell served as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, where she managed several crime reduction efforts, including the collection and analysis of crime data, criminal background investigations, juvenile justice, and the administration of state and federal criminal justice grants. Prior to her appointment, Ms. O’Donnell was a litigation partner at Hodgson Russ, LLP. During the Clinton Administration, she was appointed as United States Attorney for the Western District of New York (1997-2001). Ms. O’Donnell joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District in 1985 as a prosecutor and was later promoted to First Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1993. Earlier in her career, she served as a law clerk to the late Justice M. Dolores Denman of the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Ms. O’Donnell is currently active on various legal and professional organizations, including the New York State Justice Task Force, the Criminal Justice Council of the New York City Bar Association, and the Criminal Justice Section of the New York State Bar Association. She has lectured at the SUNY Buffalo School of Law and with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Education. Ms. O’Donnell holds a B.A. from Canisius College and an M.S.W and J.D., summa cum laude, from the State University of New York at Buffalo.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/09/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

Aug 5, 2010

Understanding Parole Revocations: My Interview with Parole Revocation Specialist, Elaine Kallinikos


The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services recently released its 2009 Crimestat Report which included the rates of return to prison for formerly incarcerated individuals over the period of three years, beginning in 2006 and ending in 2009. In 2006, 24,520 individuals were released from NY State prisons. After three years of release, 41.2 %of them had returned to prison. While many may assume that most individuals on parole return to prison because they have committed a new offense, the vast majority are actually sentenced to a term of prison due to a violation of the conditions of their parole. In fact, between 2006 and 2009 only 10.7% of released individuals returned to prison because they were convicted of a new felony offense. The vast majority, 30.5%, were returned to prison due to a violation of the conditions of their parole or what is referred to as a “technical violation.” A technical violation occurs when an individual on parole fails to abide by the rules set out for him by the Parole Board at the time of release. These include, reporting to a Parole Officer, abiding by a curfew, refraining from associating with others on Parole, and staying off drugs, to name a few.

To learn more about what happens when someone is taken into custody for a technical violation of parole, I sat down with Elaine Kallinikos, a Parole Revocation Specialist for the New York State Division of Parole, Manhattan Six, Special Offenders Unit. Ms. Kallinikos is responsible for prosecuting parolees serving a term of parole after a conviction for a sex offense, parolees who have a mental illness, or parolees involved in a special reentry program (including the Reentry Programs at the Harlem Community Justice Center) when they are accused of violating the conditions of their parole. Ms. Kallinikos prosecutes these individuals in front of an Administrative Law Judge at what is called a “Parole Revocation Hearing.”


What is a parole revocation hearing and what is your role in that hearing?

When a Senior Parole Officer makes the determination to issue a warrant for an individual because he has violated the conditions of his release, he is taken into custody and entitled to two hearings. The first is a preliminary hearing, the second is a final hearing. The preliminary hearing is to determine whether the Division of Parole had probable cause to issue a warrant for violating the conditions of his release. This preliminary hearing can be, and often is, waived. If the parolee decides to have the preliminary hearing, and the hearing officer determines that there was probable cause to issue the warrant, the parolee will remain in custody.

When the preliminary hearing is completed, the case is sent to me. We then have an arraignment process where I take the charges into consideration and may offer a plea. If the parolee pleads guilty his parole will be revoked and he can be sent back to prison or he may be “revoked and restored” and sentenced to a program in the community and continue on parole. Otherwise, he may have a contested hearing, a Parole Revocation Hearing, in which I bring witnesses to prove the charges and an attorney representing the parolee brings witnesses to dispute the charges.

How do you decide what type of sentence to recommend when someone accepts a plea or has a contested hearing and loses?

First, the law guides what type of sentence a parolee is eligible for. The first category is a “Category One” which means that the parolee is a “Violent Felony Offender” and he can face up to 15 months. The second, “Category Two Violators” are “Non-Violent Felony Offenders” and are eligible for programs. “Category Three Violators” are exempt from “Category Two” because they have some sort of psychiatric or medical exclusion. A “Category Four Violator” is a persistent violator, someone who has violated Parole more than two times. They can be sentenced up to 12 months.

The Revocation Specialists considers what category the parolee falls under as well as a range of other factors: whether or not this is the individual’s first parole violation, his criminal history, if he turned himself in or if he absconded. We look at whether the individual has a drug condition, whether he suffers from a mental illness, and whether he has had an opportunity for programming before. Individuals may also violate on different phases on parole. Some may have never made their arrival report so there has never been any adjustment to supervision. Some may have just relapsed from drugs or many have decompensated mentally.

for clarification, can you take me through a scenario, one that includes a new misdemeanor offense and some technical violations? An individual is on parole for a non-violent offense, a drug sale. He is accused of shoplifting at 12am (past their curfew), arrested by the police, and brought into criminal court. What happens?


First, just because an individual is arrested on parole doesn’t mean he is going to be violated by his Senior Parole Officer. The Parole Officer must do a thorough investigation. He must speak to witnesses--police officer, store security, a complaining witness—and based upon that, make a determination as to whether there is enough evidence to sustain a charge. In this scenario, there are three potential “technical charges” that the individual can be violated for. I am not referring to the new separate criminal case that will be taken care of separately. The “technical charges” are having broken the law, staying out past curfew, and possibly not reporting police contact to his Parole Officer

Cases are conferenced between the Parole Officer and the Senior Parole Officer and it is determined whether it is necessary to issue a warrant because either the individuals is a danger to community, himself, or he is in violation of his parole conditions. Alternatives to incarceration at that juncture are deemed inappropriate. Not to say that they may not be considered later on in the process, but at the point that the individual is taken into custody, generally, all other alternatives should have been exhausted and sanctions should have been imposed.

So if the Senior Parole Officer decides to issue the warrant, the parolee is taken into custody, and held on Riker’s Island [one of New York City’s jails]. A preliminary hearing must occur within 15 days from which the warrant is lodged. If the parolee waives the preliminary hearing, he must have a final hearing within 8 business days of the lodge of the warrant.

Who presides over these hearings?

The preliminary hearing determination (of probable cause) is made by hearing officers. Hearing Officers do not have law degrees. (Who are they employed by?)

The State Division of Parole.

The arraignments and final hearing are presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). At these proceedings, I make my recommendation, the parolee’s attorney makes his and in non-board [Parole Board] reviewable cases, the ALJ’s decision is final.

What is the difference between Board-Reviewable cases and Non-Board Reviewable cases?

Board Reviewable Cases are cases where the individual who is being adjudicated for a technical violation is a violent felony offender. For example, a sex offender or someone who has committed a homicide. For example, you have someone on parole for rape and it is his first violation. Let’s say he has been out on parole a year and up until the point of the violation he was doing well. Let’s say what brought him back into custody was that he wasn’t attending his program and missed two reporting days. I make a recommendation, the parolee’s attorney makes a recommendation and the ALJ makes a decision. So for a sex offender first violation, if I recommend twelve months in prison and the Judge agrees with me, that case then goes to the Parole Board. The Board doesn’t have to go along with it. They can turn around and say they are going to give him more time [or less].

You work in the Special Offenders Unit. so you prosecute people with mental illnesses who I imagine have more difficulty complying with the rules of parole. How do you think about this when making your recommendation to the judge or Parole Board?

I do find that people with mental illness do have more difficulty complying with the rules. Hopefully, at the point in which that individual is brought to their final hearing, they are stabilized on medication.

The parolee’s attorney will offer mitigation regarding their mental health issue and why they were violating their condition of parole. I may argue that even though the client was mentally ill, they still understood that they had to abide by conditions of a release or that at the time they were violated they were stable.

The judge will make the determination. If the individual has committed a violent act, for which they have been violated, generally that will go to a contested hearing and then I will have to bring victims to testify. If it is just a matter of technical violation and they don’t believe the individual is a danger to community, that individual will generally end up in a program. Sometimes, I may argue that I feel the individual is a danger to the community. I may point that out to the judge, but it’s the judge’s decision. If the person is sentenced to a program, the person waits in jail until they find a program—a lot of the mentally ill individuals will be waiting in jail because there is a lot of paperwork that need to be approved.

We hear a lot about being indeterminate sentences such as “fifteen to life.” Does anyone ever serve a life sentence on parole?


“Life” is not life as we know it. Individuals who receive a life sentence are eligible for discharge from parole after 3 years. The Parole Officer submits a report to the Board for consideration. This is only their recommendation. The Parole Board makes a final decision. Individuals who have life on parole that keep on violating their parole can wind up on parole for life. They make their “life sentence” a life sentence because they keep getting technical violations and lose time.

A few questions about you. What do you like about your work?

I feel that I make a difference, that I am protecting a community. I felt like that as a Parole Officer and as a Senior Parole Officer. We work very hard and I just want to impress that it is not all about sending these guys back to prison. What sends them back to prison is their behavior and our main concern is the protection of the community. Sometimes it may be in the best interest of the community for that individual to reenter society with the supports that he needs and that is also what we try to do in the violation process as well. It’s a balance. It is not just about sending everyone back, it is also about helping them to make a successful reentry into the community.

What is your day to day like?

When I am in the office, I am preparing cases, speaking with Parole Officers, doing investigations, and speaking with police officers, ADAs, Legal Aid attorneys. I am reading through databases; I want to know the history of how the guy came to violate his parole. That is basically what I do when I’m in the office.

When I am at court, I am presenting my cases, either conferencing cases or having contested hearings.

How often do you have contested hearings?

Infrequently, only because I work very hard to resolve the cases. I really save the fight for the fight.

Is there anything else you’d like to share about your work?

The Revocation Specialists work very hard and we are not a separate entity from our Parole Bureau. We do ask the Parole Officers for their recommendations and take them into consideration. It is very important for us to work together as a team. The bottom line is community safety. Even though our focus is on reentry, which is important, we should not lose sight of our mission. We should be focusing on reentry, but we should always keep the protection of the community in mind.

Jul 21, 2010

New York Times Writes in Support of Common Sense Laws to Address Employment Discrimination

An Editorial in today's New York Times entitled "Hiring and Fairness" shines a light on a growing trend to address employment discrimination for persons with a criminal conviction. Too often, especially in poor communities of color, the formerly incarcerated are routinely denied the opportunity to compete for work based on their criminal record. Municipalities and those contractors doing business with them are an important source of well paying local jobs with benefits. According to the Editorial, states are passing laws that remove barriers to municipal hiring and licensing for persons with a criminal conviction.

Dec 25, 2009

Reform Across the Hudson

There's a great op-ed in today's New York Times in support of a set of proposed reforms in New Jersey that would help reentrants more smoothly transition to their neighborhoods while reducing both recidivism and prison costs.

From the article, here's what the reforms would accomplish:

"An ex-offender could not be disqualified for employment unless the offense was directly related to the job. Job seekers would no longer be required to disclose convictions on applications for state, county or municipal jobs. The offenses could still be uncovered in background checks, but they would no longer automatically rule out an applicant from the start.

The bill would lift the state ban on food stamps and welfare benefits for people with felony drug convictions and would expand education and training opportunities for inmates. And it would end an odious practice under which the prison system earns a profit by overcharging poor families for the collect calls they receive from relatives inside a system. The added cost sometimes forces families to choose between putting food on the table or letting a child speak to an incarcerated parent."

Dec 22, 2009

Second Chance Act Grant Solicitation Released

The U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) released the solicitation for Second Chance Act grant applications to state and local governments for adult and juvenile reentry demonstration projects (Section 101).

Funding under this section is available to help state and local agencies implement programs and strategies to reduce recidivism and ensure the safe and successful reentry of adults and juveniles released from prisons and jails back to the community.

To download the solicitation or find out more about the grant program, click here.

The deadline for applications is 8:00 p.m. ET on March 4, 2010.

Dec 19, 2009

Finding a Job: An Interesting Approach

A story in today's New York Times describes Michael Johnson's tactic for finding a job after having spent time in prison.

Although not required, he clips a note to any job application he submits, saying, "'I have been convicted of a nontheft, nonviolent felony over 11 years ago,' it reads. 'I take full responsibility for my actions and have succeeded in turning my life around. I understand the stigma that is attached with a felony and will make it my mission to prove that I am trustworthy, dependable and hard-working.'"

There's also an unexpected -- and charming -- romantic aspect to Mr. Johnson's story.

Dec 14, 2009

State Reentry Leaders Gather

"We want to return to a balanced approach," Andrea Evans, Chairperson of the New York State Division of Parole, told an audience of reentry leaders gathered in Saratoga Springs, NY. She was joined by the state's other criminal justice and treatment commissioners: Brain Fischer, Commissioner of the State Division of Correctional Services, Karen Carpenter- Commissioner of the Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services, and Deputy Secretary Denise O'Donnell. The conference was sponsored by the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services and U.S Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Commissioner Palumbo proclaimed that Rockefeller drug law reform should be renamed "Patterson drug law reform", after Governor David Patterson who signed into law the most sweeping reforms of New York State's drug laws in April.

New York State is in the midst of a ten-year justice reform effort following the National Institute of Corrections' Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) model. The reforms include: the development of local County Reentry Task Force programs, adoption of an actuarial risk and needs assessment tool, cognitive behavioral interventions, and enhanced in-prison substance abuse and mental health.

The rising cost of incarceration is helping to spur the need for reform. In New York, according to Commissioner Palumbo, it cost $40,000 per year on average to house a state inmate, compared to $30,000 for inpatient drug treatment, and $10,000 for outpatient drug treatment.

While the effort to reform the state's criminal justice system is truly historic, much remains to be done. Many, including some in the audience, point to some key challenges. Next year's gubernatorial election will undoubtedly slow progress. Also, long time parole and corrections officers may resist efforts that, while "evidence-based," entail some fundamental changes in the way they work. The state's worsening budget could also stall efforts.

Dec 13, 2009

On the Power of Consistency and Discipline

by Kate Krontiris, Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School of Government

This week, we had a chance to talk with Andres Idarraga, who is a second-year law student at Yale Law School. Mr. Idarraga has a unique story: while spending six-and-a-half years in prison for selling drugs, he began to read voraciously, eventually tutoring other students in GED courses, and completing some college courses by correspondence. After some time at the University of Rhode Island upon release, Mr. Idarraga was accepted to Brown University, where he completed his Bachelor’s degree. Just before he takes his final exams this semester, Mr. Idarraga made time to share his story with Rethinking Reentry.


1. Tell us a little bit about what you are pursuing now -- what do you hope to do when you graduate from Yale Law School?

Right now, I’m taking law classes in administrative law, federal income tax law, and business organizations, and I am a student member of the education adequacy law clinic. I’m also teaching constitutional law to 11th and 12th graders at a local high school. Next semester, I will join the school’s community and economic development clinic.

The two areas that really interest me are education and community economic development. Last summer, I interned at the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, where I worked mostly on education cases. I worked on a case where a private for-profit corporation was delivering alternative education services to students who had been kicked out of their home schools. There were several problems with how this model was functioning, resulting in violations of students’ legal rights. At the education clinic at Yale, we are working on an education suit against the State of Connecticut, which alleges that the way Connecticut funds its public schools does not meet the state’s constitutional requirements. There has been a huge legal battle over the interpretation of states’ right–to-education clauses throughout the country. The way that states interpret these clauses affects the way they fund education. We allege that Connecticut’s funding formula fails to provide poor students with an “adequate and equal education” as required by the state constitution.

In the economic development realm, I plan to help homeowners deal with mortgage foreclosures and the collapse of the housing market. The community and economic development clinic also provides legal services to smaller not well-financed entrepreneurs. At the structural level, I’m interested in the delivery of government programs to distressed community. For example, once an economic development program is in place, how do we ensure that it reaches the right people?

In terms of personal goals, I want to bring the culture of education to my own family, particularly my younger brother, nephew and cousins. I hope to normalize education within my own family. I am the first in my family to graduate from high school and college, and to go on to graduate school. But I do not want to be the only one. I think it’s important to make stories of success the norm and this begins within my family unit. At the same time, I hope to play a role in delivering effective educational services to disadvantaged communities.

2. What made you the type of person to take adversity and turn it around? Do you feel you have some special qualities or experiences that make you an exception, or do you think more guys and gals in prison would do the same if they could?



I do not believe I have any special qualities. I think that more people could do it and should do it. Growing up, I had friends and family members going in and out of prison – when it first happened to me, in the circumstances I grew up in, I thought that it was the norm. But when I was first sent to a maximum-security prison, and I saw many young kids doing life sentences, I thought, “Wow, this could be me or my younger brother spending the rest of our lives in prison.” This was when the reality of the situation hit me. The system doesn’t really care who they put away – nor should they. It is there to deal with the consequences of criminal actions and to punish people for them. But to be around so many young people doing very long prison sentences really shocked me. Unlike them, I was going to be able to go home again – and that sparked me to say, “I have this second chance. What am I going to do with it?”

Although I was raised by my mother, it was my father who brought us to this country. My parents grew up really poor in rural Colombia. My dad looked at the U.S. with that immigrant gaze, thinking that when he got here, it would be the land of great opportunity. My dad had no education, and he made great sacrifices. My mother also worked hard to provide for my brother and me. As much as my parents struggled to provide a better life for me, their reward was seeing me in prison. I felt like I owed a debt to them. I recognized the struggles my family made for me.

One thing that happened by chance was that I became a GED tutor for other students in prison and I discovered that I loved teaching other students. I loved explaining things to them. As I developed a passion for helping others to further their education, I also developed a hunger to continuously learn more things for myself. I ate up every book in the library and through those books, I began to envision myself as something different. From that point, things changed. I took college classes while I was still incarcerated. However, I was by no means the most talented person in prison. There were and are many other people in prison who could and should do it.

A personal advantage I had was that, even though my mom did not have any money and struggled in many ways, she supported me tremendously while I was in prison. I knew that my home situation was better than a lot of the guys and that gave me a distinct advantage. When a person does not have a stable foundation, he or she can’t take the next steps.

One last thing I want to emphasize is that while I was teaching and reading, I internalized, very deeply, a framework that was almost delusional at the time. This was that a person can accomplish absolutely anything, regardless of the circumstances, if he or she works hard enough. I remember applying to Brown University from my prison cell and the guards would see my mail with “Brown University” on it. They would look at me like, “This kid is delusional. What is he thinking?” But I had this firm belief that I was talented and I could get into college if I applied myself. I think many people who have grown up in disadvantaged circumstances have developed an ingrained, perverted mentality that they can’t do something, or that they can’t have certain experiences because they are reserved for more privileged people.

2. So many people in prison are illiterate. Are there ways that you think even the lowest-level learners could be encouraged to pursue their education?

That is an interesting, much harder question for me. When a person begins at such a disadvantage, how does that person map out a 10,000-mile journey concretely and systematically? You have to be able to answer the questions that person maybe asking himself: what are the greatest obstacles and what are the rewards of learning to read? When that person is able to see the whole process, or see people who have been through it, it gives him a wider vision and a roadmap, something different from “I’m too far back to even try.”

I have several friends who have come home from prison and are now pursuing college or vocational programs. They may have initially taken some classes in prison just to kill time, but when they saw me achieve something concrete by going on to college once released, they realized the possible significance of their daily actions. So instead of working aimlessly and taking classes just to kill time, the goal at the end of the journey became more concrete for them.

People beginning at a lower level have a longer journey. It must be explained to them what the good parts and the difficult parts of the journey will be and they must be assisted in coming up with their end-goals. For this, they should be asked what they want to accomplish by learning to read or, even more generally, what they want to accomplish when they come home. The goal is to get them to firmly realize the benefits of learning to read.

3. What advice do you have for policymakers around prison education? How would you suggest the discharge process be adjusted to support the educational goals of persons leaving prison?



Personally, I didn’t have any institutional support from the prison to pursue my educational goals when I was getting out. It’s funny -- I learned about applying to college and applying for financial aid from a USA Today article that described both processes step-by-step. There were 10 to 15 steps and I followed them all. It was like, “Step 1: Figure out where you want to go and write them a letter asking for a brochure. Step 2: Apply for FAFSA, etc.”

So, for people leaving prison, it could be as simple as providing them with a step-by-step guide, especially about financial aid for college. There are federal programs available that will provide funds for low-income people that want to pursue their education. Pell Grants provide free money to go to college. Many people in prison don’t know about this, and even prisoner reentry non-profit groups don’t know enough about it. Some people think that, because they have a criminal conviction, they are barred from any federal money for school. True, they might have to jump through more hoops, but it’s not impossible. Maybe another idea is for teachers in prison to identify students who have expressed an interest in going to college and then provide those students with classes about the process.

I think the broader prison education policy point is that prison education pays for itself in abundance. You can look at the recidivism rates or the successes of people who have accomplished getting their education. The Bard Prison Initiative is one great program that comes to mind, where Bard professors go into prisons and actually grant degrees for the courses that students take. [Click here for a 60 Minutes segment on the Bard Prison Initiative.] But it is hard for the public, especially in tough economic times, to swallow the bitter pill of seeing education services go to a population that is stigmatized as not deserving of a publicly-funded education. Still, we need to have a communal dialogue with the public about this issue. Delivering educational services to prisoners could potentially make a big dent in incarceration costs.


4. Who in your life encouraged you on this path? It is rare that someone just does this without the mentoring or support of some key person(s) in their life. How did you develop and nurture the relationships you made along the way?

To name one person would be unfair – it was so many people. However, nobody comes to your help unless you are willing to help yourself first. As soon as you show that you are hungry for a better life, people are more than willing to help out.

Back in junior high and high school, when I was doing well, I had a lot of teachers who gave me great advice. I wasn’t able to appreciate their efforts then, but I was able to reflect on them when I was in prison.

In prison, when I started thinking about applying to college, an old friend from high school would type up my handwritten letters for me and research whatever I needed on the internet. At the University of Rhode Island, a professor encouraged me to apply to Brown and helped me with the process.

When I applied to law school, the director of the prison system (himself a Yale Law graduate) became a huge supporter. I also developed a friendship with a law professor who had grown up in my neighborhood. He was someone who had grown up in troubled circumstances, but made it to the local community college. He transferred to a four-year college and ended up graduating from Harvard Law. He helps me with the books I need for law school. I am blessed to have a community of people who have extended their hands to help me on this journey.

In general, people sometimes may be reluctant to help out a formerly incarcerated individual because they may have misgivings about that person. They think they may be taking a chance. Therefore, the ex-felon must be willing to take the first step by showing any potential allies what they have done before reaching out for assistance. By showing initiative, the formerly incarcerated can build the credibility and trust needed to secure support from others.

For the formerly incarcerated, they can’t take any initial rejection as a value judgment made on their character. People may not be making such a judgment, but may feel they are taking a chance in the unknown by supporting an ex-felon. We need to understand their point of view and to allay their concerns.

One last thing I want to re-emphasize is the power of small, consistent, disciplined steps. Creating the big picture in your mind and believing it will materialize, all the while taking the concerted daily actions necessary to make it so, is very powerful. Consistency and discipline make up for many, many things in our lives.


Photo credit Brown University/John Abromowski.

Dec 9, 2009

New National Statistics on Corrections Populations

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released two bulletins that examine the numbers of prisoners and individuals under probation or parole supervision in the nation for 2008 and report on related trends—including an overall increase in the number of individuals being released from federal and state prisons.

The bulletins were posted on the National Reentry Resource Center website, which is a new place to find information about reentry.

Nov 19, 2009

Funding Alert: SAMSHA Offender Reentry Program

Under SAMSHA's Offender Reentry Grant program $13 million dollars is available to expand or enhance substance abuse and related reentry services for sentenced juveniles or adults returning to the community. Applications are due January 19, 2010. To learn more click here.

Oct 7, 2009

New! National Reentry Resource Center Website

The Council of State Governments, in partnership with the Urban Institute, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, the American Probation and Parole Association, and a national advisory board; has just launched a great new reentry resource. Established under the Second Chance Act, the National Reentry Resource Center disseminates information about reentry issues and promotes best practices in the field.

Their goals:
  • Provide a one-stop, interactive source of current, user-friendly reentry information.
  • Identify, document, and promote evidence-based practices.
  • Deliver individualized, targeted technical assistance to the Second Chance Act grantees.
  • Advance the reentry field through training, distance learning, and knowledge development.
Why this is helping for you:

The site lists funding opportunities, has a searchable database of program examples, offers research on a number of different topics related to reentry, and provides information about how to start your own reentry initiative. Importantly, there is a set of resources just for people who are returning from prison, many of them created by partners of the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force.

Check it out!

Oct 6, 2009

Community Prosecution and Reentry


By: Christopher Watler
Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force Coordinator

I am blogging this week from the National Community Prosecution Conference in Los Angeles sponsored by the National District Attorney's Association and the Center for Court Innovation.

Community Prosecution is a crime-reduction approach that utilizes the authority of the prosecutor’s office to build problem-solving partnerships that reduce crime and strengthens communities. It has been growing as a philosophy and strategy since the 1990’s when pioneers like District Attorney Charles Hynes in Brooklyn, NY, and Mike Shrunk, Portland Oregon’s DA, began programs to address the underlying causes of crime. Most recently, the Democratic candidate for the Manhattan District Attorney’s seat has embraced community prosecution.

Today the lunch time keynote speaker was Bonnie Dummas, San Diego County District Attorney. Since 2005, her office has coordinated a reentry initiative for San Diego County. The program focuses on non-violent offenders, and identifies potentially eligible cases prior to arraignment. A readiness conference is held involving the defendant and their attorney. The defendant is advised that they must plead guilty to the charge in order to be eligible for the program. If they do plead guilty, probation and DOCS work out a “life plan” with the client. DOCS utilizes the COMPAS risk assessment tool, an evidence-base screening tool. The life plan and assessment information is used to guide the type of programming the client will receive in prison, and is adjusted during the discharge planning phase. This process avoids the 90 day “classification” period all convicted persons are subjected to when they enter DOCS. Instead, work can begin immediately on the life plan goals.

In prison, clients work with a primary counselor to achieve their life plan goals. The plan is regularly adjusted in advance of release to prepare clients for life after prison. Faith-based partners conduct prison in-reach to engage clients prior to release. Community prosecutors also visit clients in prison. A case manager from a treatment provider under contract with the county conducts a treatment assessment six months prior to release. Upon release to parole, clients are picked up and transported to their pre-arranged housing, where they are reminded of their life plan appointments.

The services received by clients once they are in the community are paid for through a voucher program where dollars for services follow each client—i.e. programs are paid if they are successful at engaging clients. Police help to keep tabs on clients in the community.

While a comprehensive evaluation has not been conducted yet, the program has shown some success. Since inception, 500 clients have been enrolled in the program, 223 have been released from custody, and only 32 (14%) have re-offended.

Oct 5, 2009

Guns, Legitimacy, and Social Networks

On average, 14,000 guns per year are recovered from the streets of Chicago.
Let's repeat: 14,000.

Some other facts to consider:
  • In New York, the homicide rate is about 9 homicides per 100,000 people. In Chicago, it is roughly 18 homicides per 100,000 people (2008 data).

  • About 80% of Chicago's murders involve an illegal firearm and most are in some way connected to gang-related disputes.
Andrew Papachristos, a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts and a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, has begun making sense of these facts by examining social networks and gun offenders' perceptions of legal authority. At a presentation to Harvard Law School today (and in a paper due to be published shortly), Papachristos found the following:

"gun offenders (just like noncriminals) are more likely to comply with the law when they believe in (a) the substance of the law, and (b) the legitimacy of legal actors, especially the police. Moreover, we find that opinions of compliance to the law are not uniformly distributed across the sample population. In other words, not all criminals are alike in their opinions of the law. Gang members -- but especially gang members with social networks saturated with criminal associates -- are significantly less likely to view the law and its agents as a legitimate form of authority. However, those individuals (including gang members) with less saturated criminal networks actually tend to have more positive opinions of the law, albeit these opinions are still overall negative."

What does this mean?

Looking at a sample of 150 gun offenders in 54 Chicago police beats, Papachristos finds that "criminals" obey the law for much the same reasons that law-abiding citizens obey the law: they feel a moral obligation to do so and think that most laws are right, fair, and just. The difference, according to survey data, is about treatment by the police: most gun offenders do not believe that the police treat most people with respect. In fact, Papachristos and his colleagues found that respect for the police is the only predictor of whether gun offenders perceive the law as a legitimate authority. More than deterrence strategies or prosecutorial outcomes, what cops do matters a lot in offenders' perceptions of procedural justice.

Interestingly, gang members are actually more likely to believe in the substance of the law -- Papachristos wisely notes that there is a non-trivial respect for authority among gang members (think of the Sopranos if you need a pop culture reference) -- but their networks have huge influence on their favorable perceptions of the law. The more people in your network who are engaging in criminal behavior, the more you learn from those people about being a criminal. Papachristos' data shows that gang members whose network ties are more than 50% saturated with other criminal actors are more likely to engage in criminal behavior themselves. Additionally, the more you believe in the legitimacy of the law, the less likely you are to carry a gun. There are not very strong effects for social networks in terms of promoting gun carrying, but these effects are strong for specific, non-planned behaviors (like getting into a fight).

The conclusion we can draw here is that government entities seeking to encourage law-obiding behavior among gun offenders would do well to promote their own legitimacy in the eyes of the offenders. Policies targeted toward improving these perceptions (which might involve de-saturating networks of criminal influences or improving the police-community relationship) could have a perceptible impact on gun violence.

So why does this matter for reentry?

One of Papachristos' key conclusions is that successful reentry is really the problem at hand: he notes that two-thirds of the sample participants have prior felony convictions. The City of Chicago and the U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Illinois have implemented a Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative, which is a federally-funded model for reducing neighborhood crime problems. One of the components of this initiative is regular "roundtable meetings," where returning gun offenders sit down with law enforcement officers, successful reentrants, and representatives of community agencies for a restorative justice conversation. After a message from police officers about the surveillance that will be conducted on them ("We are going to get you if you re-offend, and here's how"), ex-gang members share their turnaround stories and service providers are on hand to offer immediate connections to employment, mental health counseling, and housing opportunities. The results from these forums are promising: Project Safe Neighborhoods evaluations indicate that, as the percentage of active offenders in the neighborhood who attend the meeting increases, the neighborhood-level homicide rate decreases. Additionally, forum participants are less likely to re-offend for several varieities of crime when compared to several different control groups.

In the coming week, we'll be sitting down with Professor Papachristos to get a more detailed picture of gun violence in Chicago and the lessons to be learned for anti-gun violence projects in New York City.

What questions do you have for him?
Send them over and we'll do our best to ask!

Sep 15, 2009

A Tough Sell Indeed


We saw this interesting article about the Minnesota Prisoner Re-Entry Project’s effort to help formerly incarcerated persons find work. Beyond the challenges of doing this work, we thought it was interesting that the Project deployed a Vista volunteer to do this work. To read the article click here.

National Service Volunteers are increasingly an important resource in the reentry work being done across the country. Here at the Justice Center we have the good fortune of having a former parolee and graduate of our Harlem Reentry Court program who is now an AmeriCorps member working to assist current parolees in the program. It is a win-win for everyone involved.

Sep 8, 2009

Marion County Oregon Recieves Second Chance Act Grant

The Marion County Re-Entry Initiative has been awarded a grant under the Second Chance Act by the U.S Department of Justice. These eagerly awaited reentry grants are just begining to be announced. Read the article here.

Jul 21, 2009

"Making Prisoner Reentry Work"

An opinion piece by Richard Greenwald, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, in City Journal highlights the importance of mayors getting involved in prisoner reentry. To read the full article click here.